Comments about ‘Second Amendment: History's lesson and warning’

In addition I don't hear anyone lambasting Corzine, the ex governor of New
Jersey for his bilking millions out the investors in his charge at MF Global.
He is being protected by this administration because he has made significant
contributions to it. The guy should be in jail! Personal attacks instead of
solid reasoning and facts don't solve any problems.

Senator Lee respectively how do you expect us to respect you when you did a
short sale on your own home after you had mortgaged it to the hilt for some last
minute campaign spending. Is it not true that Reagen's own head of the
budget has said that the combo of the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded wars (two)
are almost half the debt owed now?and yes I believe those who sell to the
mentally impaired and people who lie on gun checks are committing a felony and
should be put in jail along with the felon.

@Duckhunter"Just because you can justify and do something and call it
"constitutional" or "allowed" it doesn't mean it should be
done."

As a general concept, I agree with this. As it regards
this particular issue, I don't think this is such a case.

"None of these proposals will buy you a bit of safety nor will they make
your life better, but you appear to be just another of the emotional
reactionaries that wants "something done" regardless of its lack of
value or effectiveness. "

I held these positions long before
Newtown and I do think some of these proposals will make things safer,
especially the background checks for all gun purchases provision. Something like
the high capacity magazine ban doesn't do much outside of mass shootings, a
small percentage of the gun deaths each year, so I'm willing to compromise
away things like that just to get the background check provision.

@ShaunMcC"we ignore and even assist criminals ability to have
weapons"

Fast and Furious? You know the problem with that is
because our laws do not currently allow us to pursue those who engage in straw
purchasing. That's something we need to change.

A right to "arm" includes by the senators open ended discussion any arm,
including rocket grenades, and laser weaponry available to the military. Then
the citizens can fill in the "gaps" of government and take individual
action to remain free. So if your having a paranoid delusion about a
conspiracy to regulate who can buy guns that develops into into a UN conspriacy
to confiscate all guns, you can act on it? The problem with weapons designed to
kill people being carried around concealed on the streets is the reasonableness
of the gun obsessives as demonstrated above. A resonable person should not mind
proving they are law abiding and carry weapons outside the home in a secure
locked case.

@Monk"The current debate on gun control is about addressing a very
real epidemic of mass shootings in the United States."

We have
maybe 50 people a year killed by mass shootings. We have roughly 10,000 a year
killed by guns. Mass shootings are a tiny fraction of the gun violence we see.
We should be looking to reduce ALL gun violence (including suicide).

@Redshirt1701"Here are the 2 main points that they have yet to deal
with.First, and most importantly, are they prepared to have government
regulations on more of their rights?"

As long as it's a
reasonable regulation, sure. Obviously we differ on what we consider reasonable.

"Second, by making guns harder to get you are putting more lives
at risk to violent crimes and death by means other than guns. Is it really worth
saving 1 life if it costs 10 other lives that could have been saved by
guns?"

If your hypothetical were true, I'd say no. However,
I do not believe your hypothetical is accurate since I believe the ratio goes
the other way where making guns harder to get saves more lives than it costs.

@Redshirt1701"We already have laws for background checks when buying a
gun. How about we just enforce the laws that we already have?"

We
don't currently have laws that require background checks for ALL gun
purchases. There are plenty of loopholes in the system whereby someone can
currently legally by a gun without a background check. I would like those
loopholes closed. Btw, if you want things enforced then tell the Republicans to
stop blocking the appointment of an ATF director.

@iron&clay"Are these people making an argument for more government control because
they are on the payroll of the Wall street bankers? You know, the bankers who
float all the bonds that underwrite big government spending programs and take
their percentage on every dollar of big government debt?"

What
logic is that even trying to... no, not at all. We just want less gun
violence.

@Doogie"no facts to back them up. "

Even Justice Scalia said in the court ruling striking down the Chicago gun ban
that the Second Amendment doesn't mean there can't be any regulation
on guns.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mike Lee; what he is saying and what he is
doing in fighting arms control and defending the 2nd Amendment is RIGHT ON!

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, folks.

If
we lose our right to bear arms, or have our arms capacity scaled down so much
(magazine size, etc.) that we can't protect ourselves from a Tyrannical
government, should one arise, you will wish for a thousand Mike Lees.

I see people complaining about Lee's knowledge of history. Some of you
should do some brushing up yourselves. The 2nd amendment was not written into
law to protect us from each other. It was written into law to protect us from
government tyrant. Something the founding fathers were all to familiar with as
are many people's from many nations.

If we really want to
protect us from ourselves how about better medical education to prevent
malpractice deaths which far out number gun deaths.

"Even Justice Scalia said in the court ruling striking
down the Chicago gun ban that the Second Amendment doesn't mean there
can't be any regulation on guns." And your point is? That is an opinion
of one supreme court justice, a liberal one at that. The facts about gun
control are well stated and for that matter no one focuses on the lives guns
have saved! The killer in Portland only shot and killed two people...why?
Because there was a man with concealed carry gun who pointed his gun at the
shooter and would have fired if another person had not been in the way. That
was the last shot the guy fired at anyone but himself!

The government can background check til they are blue in the face. The end
result is, it cannot restrict gun ownership in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
Says so in the US Constitution. And, in case they haven't read it lately,
it says in part '... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.' I don't see any, ANY exceptions there.

The surest way to increase the population of bad guys with guns is to persuade
more good guys to bear arms. That's because every bad guy with a gun is
legally a good guy until he commits his first crime.

And let's
face it, having a gun around sure makes it easy for a good guy to quickly become
a bad guy, especially if he's angry, loopy, desperate or off his meds.
(Loopy is probably not the technical medical term, but I can't think of it
at the moment.)

What's all the falderal about controlling guns? If Congress seriously
thinks guns should be controlled all it need do is amend the 2nd Amendment to
the Constitution. That's the shortest and easiest way. Otherwise, hands
off.

Anyone who could refer to Antonin Scalia as a
"liberal" justice needs to re-evaluate how he distinguishes the words
'liberal' and 'conservative.' Justice Scalia does not fall
in the category of the former, not even in some weird Freudian dream
interpretation.

You quoted the following passage from the 2nd Amendment:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Based on the interpretation that you and Mr. Lee are applying to this part of
the 2nd Amendment EVERYONE should be able to have any and every weapon of their
choosing. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people
except for mentally ill and felons to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
upon". Based on yours and Mr. Lee's argument the possession of surface
to air missiles, grenade launchers etc. should not be infringed upon either. The
constitution does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms except
for surface to air missiles and grenade launchers shall not be infringed upon.

The NRA and the gun advocates are perfectly fine with a broad
definition of the 2nd Amendment, but only in the places (felons and mentally
ill) of their choosing. In other aspects of the 2nd Amendment they want a very
narrow interpretation. You cannot have it both ways. Either their is some room
for interpretation or their is not.